Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Do I Explain Copyright To My Kids?
orgelspieler writes: My son paid for a copy of a novel on his iPad. When his school made it against the rules to bring iPads, he wanted to get the same book on his Kindle. I tried to explain that the format of his eBook was not readily convertible to the Kindle. So he tried to go on his schools online library app. He checked it out just fine, but ironically, the offline reading function only works on the now-disallowed iPads. Rather than paying Amazon $7 for a book I already own, and he has already checked out from the library, I found a bootleg PDF online. I tried to explain that he could just read that, but he freaked out. "That's illegal, Dad!" I tried to explain format shifting, and the injustice of the current copyright framework in America. Even when he did his own research, stumbling across EFF's website on fair use, he still would not believe me.
Have any of you fellow Slashdotters figured out a good way to navigate the moral, legal, and technological issues of copyright law, as it relates to the next generation of nerds? Interestingly, my boy seems OK with playing old video games on the Wayback Machine, so I don't think it's a lost cause.
Have any of you fellow Slashdotters figured out a good way to navigate the moral, legal, and technological issues of copyright law, as it relates to the next generation of nerds? Interestingly, my boy seems OK with playing old video games on the Wayback Machine, so I don't think it's a lost cause.
Perhaps your son should explain copyright to you.
You started too late. You should have taught him what you wanted him to know before his teachers taught him what the RIAA and MPAA wanted him to know.
Also, you didn't format shift it, you downloaded it, and that download was not fair use.
The good news is that I don't think you did anything illegal. Copyright infringement involves making a copy without a license to make copies, which you did not do, and could not do, since you didn't have a copy in the first place.
Now, if you made a copy of the copy you downloaded, that might be something you could be sued for. But it isn't illegal unless you are making unlicensed copies commercially.
See that "Preview" button?
He's not incorrect. Two wrongs don't make a right. It seems like you want to do the right thing and pay for the book but you still got the book from an illegitimate source. If you were to take the Kindle or schools version and convert to PDF, there you have done a format shift. The problem is that TOS of those services probably prohibits converting to PDF, or even if it doesn't it is probably encrypted to protect the book. Defeating the encryption is circumvention that would be against the DMCA. So, he is correct and you just need to man up and not make excuses for your actions when you know they are wrong. People download illegal copies of books and music, get over it, but don't try to build a house around the excuse of why you did it.
You need to figure out why your son is a better person and more respectful of peoples' copyrights than you are.
Or.. as someone earlier posited: Maybe you should ask your son to explain copyrights to you.
It's actually pretty brief and clear:
Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Teach them how to use a VPN
love is just extroverted narcissism
Ask Slashdot: How Do I Explain Copyright To My Kids?
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
I'm still trying to figure out why your kid's school doesn't allow them to bring an iPad to school but will let them bring a Kindle...
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
potential anti-government activists and general societal troublemakers
Pretty such all antifa/BML/BAMN/etc idiots went to public school.
Often kids grow up okay even from religious nutjob parents. They can learn the truth eventually, hopefully.
1. Explain that people need homes, because it's very cold in the winter.
2. Explain that you need money to have homes.
3. Explain that there are lots of creative people who create content in order to make money. ("Artists")
4. Explain that they only make money if people pay them to create the content.
5. Explain that the people who pay them to create the content ("Producers") also need money to have homes.
6. Explain that the Producers will only have money to have homes if they can get paid for selling the content to people.
7. Explain that the only reason Producers can get paid for selling the content to people is because of copyright, since stuff is cheap to copy.
8. Turn this into a lesson about the evolution of text and music and art in history, the printing press and the phonograph and the camera, and how over time it became more and more accessible and cheaper to copy content.
First, count your blessings that you have a son who respects rules, even perhaps in this case when he really doesn't have to.
Second, call the school and complain that it's mega-stupid that they disallow iPads when their own online library app allows you to check out books in the iPad-supported format.
Third, although you may be able to make your own legal copy, can you get someone else's bootleg copy and call it legal? Seems to me that that was Napster's business model. Where are they now?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
So he tried to go on his schools online library app. He checked it out just fine, but ironically, the offline reading function only works on the now-disallowed iPads.
Well, that is totally unreasonable and there might even be some legal cause of action there. That ONE kind of eBook-reader should be disallowed but not another that was previously allowed. Time to contact someone who can do things at the school, make the complaint, and such, Or pull the kid from that school and send them somewhere that doesn't have a Luddite administration.
I tried to explain format shifting, and the injustice of the current copyright framework in America. Even when he did his own research, stumbling across EFF's website on fair use, he still would not believe me.
Arguing that you feel the current legal framework is unfair is not the way to make someone believe you, now is it?
Well, Technically it is a gray area. If you own the print copy of the book you can use a version that someone else scanned or converted to PDF and gave to you, and it's likely claimable fair use for you to use the extra copy for your own personal usage only ---- Any person who uploaded or shared the bootleg version probably did something illegal, but not you.
My suggestion would be to get advice from an attorney.... then you can tell your kid "Copyright law has some complicated exceptions called fair use, and only a professional lawyer is qualified to fully advise on a defensible position for certain actions; Upon the advise from my lawyer I am legally in the clear (or not) to download and use a bootleg copy of the same book I already purchased for my own personal use, as long as I don't further redistribute, share it, or copy it.".
Thank you for alerting us to the wrongthink. Are you sure you didn't mean 100%?
The most important skill and experience you take away from public school is the ability to deal with the public.
Homeschooled kids lose out on that big time, and no, your church, sports, and social field trips you organize with other homeschooled kids is not a substitute.
If you are worried about the education get a tutor and do some homework with the kid, but 8 hours a day learning reading, writing, social studies, math, and science from Mom & Dad doesn't prepare them for any sort of real world.
And don't forget that you brainwash your kids too, just with the ideas and beleifs you hold. Public school for all its flaws, exposes them to other ideas, some good, some bad... and frankly the fact that he is intelligently debating with his kid about the ethics of copyright is probably the best possible outcome.
Sue them.
Copyright is artificial, arbitrary, and socialist. It is not to be compared to Lockean property rights. So tell him that, and then point out that the people (legally) wielding most of the guns in his vicinity believe otherwise. Best to act Roman most of the time...
Just a quick whack the first time, but if he continues to disobey his elders feel free to use more force until he recognizes that your authority outweight his teachers.
I don't buy digital media unless I can remove the DRM. Kindle files are easy, and last time I checked my Snow Leopard VM running iTunes 10.7 and Requiem still worked (for 1080P content, not 4K) - although movies on Blu-Ray tend to be cheaper than digital versions, and the physical disc serves as a backup for the ripped version I immediately generate and store on our in-house streaming server.
How do I explain all that to my daughter? I tell her I believe that once I've bought something, it should be mine to play and/or read in whatever manner and on whatever device I prefer.
#DeleteChrome
Yours is brainwashed. And next time don't let the system install all that bloatware in his brain, you don't have root access and you can't remove it.
This Oatmeal Comic might be a good place to start.
Make him jump through all the hoops and then make him experience the injustice of not being able to use what he paid for, again. If he's a slow learner, repeat a couple of times. He'll get it.
_My_ kids saw me spending weeks Ripping all my DVD's & CD's so that we could watch/listen without having to search for waylaid disks (as in why is this CD in this case & where is the disk that was supposed to be here. As I continued to buy new physical content and just backed it up to digital storage, they could see that the objective was NOT to rip-off the authors but to digitize what we purchase.
DRM on EBooks is the main reason I either purchase content that is already non-DRM encumbered or, If I cannot find it without DRM, I purchase it in a DRM scheme that has been broken (Kindle eBooks) & convert the DRM'ed content to a non-encumbered format (EPubs with Calibre. I then delete the DRM encumbered copy.
Apple's Fairplay not having been broken, it's DRM makes it impossible to do so, so I don't buy eBooks through Apple.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Watch this episode of The Brittas Empire (which is itself illegally offered for free viewing on Youtube, incidentally - oh the irony) and your son will learn all there is to know about copyright.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Legal != Ethical, the government is NOT your friend because you do not pay them as much as corporations, the government is NOT your son's friend, the FBI are allowed to lie and then arrest you when they trick you into unintentionally saying something untrue, images of animal abuse are 100% legal unless the images fall under the definition of snuff, a 17 year old who takes naked photos of themselves has produced child pronography and is a sex criminal, listening to music on YouTube that you do not own a license to listen to is illegal, a citizen of the United States of America that lives and works outside the USA and generates income must pay taxes to the USA on that income.
It sounds like instead of convincing your son that he is factually wrong, you must attack his belief that illegal means immoral.
The best way to do that is to keep making comments about how things he routinely does are illegal until he buckles under the pressure. Good luck!
He'll be able to take it everywhere in his backpack and just read. And when he finishes, he'll give it to his friends and borrow other books from them.
Copyright is a pure (artificial and arbitrary) product of capitalism. Socialism is the library. You're just brainwashed by the western propaganda as his kid is.
Yup, and while everyone's reading that, I'm downloading his two books mentioned.
I have music I bought on 8 track (Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Led Zep, UFO), then bought the album (my music buying exploded about this time, an album a week), then in some cases bought the CD. I have some 3500 CDs. It's easier to download the MP3 of a CD I own than it is to dig through boxes in a closet, find the CD, and rip it myself. Have I broken copyright law? I'm sure the MAFIAA will say HELL YES!, but I'm not so sure. Where is the line? Own the CD, download the MP3? Own the LP, download the MP3? Own the 8-track, download the MP3?
:"A better sounding format".
IMHO, I bought the IP already. To me I'm not breaking any laws. Those who get money from the buying of 8-tracks->LPs->cassettes->CDs think otherwise. I think they're thinking is greedy and they need to cut back on the coke and hookers they consume.
Copyright law is about sucking as much $$$ out of people as it can, not what is right.
We won't even get into the CDs that sounded worse than the LPs. *cough* Nektar - Remember the future, *cough* Black Sabbath - Paranoid, *cough* I can come up with dozens of other examples where they rushed out a CD that sounded like crap cuz, well, people wanted their LPs on
Copyright's are easy to explain and understand. You don't copy stuff that you didn't produce yourself, without permission.
Fair use laws... That's the problem here. They don't make sense to the average person.
So... I can buy an MP3 of a song and play it in my house, in my car, privately all day long, but I cannot play it in public or use it in my business... Except if my business use is considered "fair Use". So I can play this song as a background for my Christmas light display, for the public, as long as I'm not charging admission or being paid for it. I can play the song in a church service, but I may not broadcast that song or distribute recordings of the song being played in the service without a license. I can write a review of the song, even including a small portion of the song in my review, but I may not play the entire song...
Then there is the whole Internet bastion of sites like U-Tube where you seemingly can do anything you want with the song, including splicing in other copyrighted material (video, pictures and the like) without any permission, but only because U-Tube is paying the license fees for you, unless they don't, or you distribute your material some other way... Unless it is considered public domain in the first place because the artist has been dead long enough.
I can understand how kids would be confused by all this...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Everyone in my kid's middle school is well versed in the fine art of piracy. My kid could probably provide you with a high quality azw for your Kindle.
... about how his brain doesn't reason correctly. You can tell people the facts and you won't reason to the right conclusion:
Science on reasoning
The reality is IP law is so out of control you need to sit down and get a good reason as to why it's bullshit.
Teach him about the theft of PC games and show him most wanted 2005 and NFS world online - same game but just rebranded for corporations to take control of the files on their servers. The reality is the corporate world has been stealing everything that isn't nailed down because they know the public is tech illiterate and indoctrinated. There is no such thing as balanced capitalism if you look at the last 200 years of copyright law. Go pick up a copy of Most wanted 2005 and download NFS World online, and show him how corporations trick people.
I'll use the example of need for speed for the PC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_Speed:_Most_Wanted_(2005_video_game)
Same game forked and modified to be held hostage and rebranded "MMO".
NFSWORLD homepage with years the game has been shut down
Against intellectual monopoly
Against intellectual monopoly
Home schooling is not easy. My school district made it difficult to do and the cost of books at retail price was very high. $150.00 and more per book, if you must buy 3 or 5 books many could not afford the cost. If parents work full time there are few who can have the free time to help their kids.
It may be hard in many instances but using open source content without DRM would be a better idea. It would also be less costly overall.
I had a prof in college who regularly handed us photocopies of stories and other copyrighted content. When the ethics of this was questioned he replied all is fair in love, war, and education.
The most important skill and experience you take away from public school is the ability to deal with the public.
Homeschooled kids lose out on that big time, and no, your church, sports, and social field trips you organize with other homeschooled kids is not a substitute.
And don't forget that you brainwash your kids too, just with the ideas and beleifs you hold. Public school for all its flaws, exposes them to other ideas, some good, some bad
do you have any data/study that demonstrate kids exposed to social world of a real world community, including among other things, "church, sports, and social field trips" etc, are less exposed to reality, than kids who grow up in extremely juvenile social world of american public high school(an artificial world of recent construction, very different from "real" world")?
also , given the snow-flaky behavior of kids coming who come out of public schools, who loudly, and sometimes violently, demand they want to to be protected from ideas that conflict with dominant establishment "liberal" ideology, there is enough proof, that contrary to what you say, brainwashing and inability to deal with reality is definitely a public school thing. whether it is also home school thing is yet to be demonstrated.
And I insisted on it. She was upset because a) I pull her leg a lot and b) I kept insisting for years. Around the time she learned to use the internet she came to me in a huff and said "You're a software pirate!".
Sadly me piratin' days be over. I use legally obtained copies of all the software I have, even the games. Steam & Gog made piracy obsolete. And it's not worth the trouble to pirate Microsoft OSes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There are a lot nuances to this.
You could explain that illegal is not necessarily immoral, especially in a case where you've paid for the content.
You could encourage him to choose books from authors who don't publish with DRM, which is probably the best way for any individual to influence the market. But won't get him this book and is probably over his head.
Or you could just put the book on his Kindle and not tell him how you did it, since it sounds like he's going to drop a dime on you if you tell him you downloaded it. Maybe download 1984 for him while you're at it.
The first step is to demonstrate that what is legal and what is moral are not coextensive. Once one understands that the law is at best a compromise, and its formation subject to the whims of the powerful, typically preserving, if not aggravating, the divisions in our societies, then copyright makes perfect sense.
Well son, a long time ago, here in the US, some very smart people decided to give the government the power to tell its citizens that making copies of other people's work is illegal. The intent was to make sure that ideas weren't stolen and sold under someone else's name. They called this power "copyright" and it had a time limit of fourteen years. Every time this time limit was set to expire, however, the government extended this time limit longer, and longer, and longer, and expanded what it meant more and more. Twenty-eight years ago the government gave everything ever made an automatic copyright. Twenty-five years ago the government made copyright permanent. Twenty-one years ago the government greatly expanded what copyright could prevent you from doing in addition to prohibiting copies.
It is illegal to do anything more than watch, listen to, or play things that are copyrighted, which is everything, forever. (Pause) Does that sound ridiculous to you? My only advice to you about copyright is don't get caught.
At least until Google, Microsoft, Apple, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc stop brainwashing the kids.
My kids attend public schools, and I haven't seen a single thing that I would consider "brainwashing". They learned about evolution, including epigenetics via cytosine methylation that went well beyond "classical" genetics. It was taught in a very balanced way. When they touched on controversial topics in civics class, such as gay marriage, affirmative action, illegal immigration, etc. the teacher was actually very careful not to take sides.
Would you care to give an example of something you would consider "brainwashing" that is currently occurring in public schools?
Block youtube, 99.99% of it is illegal anyway.
Disallow him from sharing DVDs with friends, after all, the content creator was only compensated for ONE sale.
Disallow him from having friends over to watch any paid content, unless they cough up the dough for the full purchase price.
Disallow him from purchasing anything used, since the content creator doesn't get a cut.
Disallow him from singing any copyrighted songs.
Disallow him from posting anything to youtube, since some photographs or content could be claimed.
Disallow sharing of the ipod with friends, after all, the content is licensed to that device, and that purchaser only.
Make sure he doesn't skip any commercials, since the content creators depend on that.
Buy printer ink? no more generic for you!
Direct a portion of his allowance to pay for the future lawsuits from content creators, about 50% should do it.
Put on the most intrusive, restrictive content filter you can find. block all the ports for streaming services, or slow them down to make them almost unbearable. Take a percentage of his allowance to cover this, say another 20%. Call it the Information-Freedom tax.
He's already well on his way to being a good consumer. Remember to tell him to CONSUME, don't question, just CONSUME.
Once it directly affects him, he may rethink a mindless acceptance of the current rules.
Certain laws have a moral justification. Other laws were made to be broken. This is a very important lesson. You don't want to raise a criminal but you don't want to raise a sheep.
capcha: banking
The most important skill and experience you take away from public school is the ability to deal with the public.
Homeschooled kids lose out on that big time
Can you cite any evidence that this is true? With five minutes of googling I located research that found homeschoolers equally or slightly better socialized, according to several different metrics, and none that found they were worse.
Homeschooled kids lose out on that big time, and no, your church, sports, and social field trips you organize with other homeschooled kids is not a substitute.
So let me get this straight. Starting in public Middle/Jr High school preteens begin to be stratified into caste systems and are socialized by peers that they âoecannotâ accept those one year or two years under them. Middle and high school students spend the majority of their time in a fixed location away from the âoepublic.â Meanwhile kids being homeschooled and participating in coops are socializing with a wide variety of pre teens and teens regardless of their year in school. The homeschoolers are also out and about in the âoepublicâ and can actually have a conversation with a adults.
Explain that copyright is imposed upon him by the ruling class.
Explain that information belongs to all of humanity.
Tell him never to pay (or rent) information ever again.
Honestly the only time pay for copyrighted material is when the owner doesn't make it a pain in the ass process and isn't a dick about it on price.
For example my engineering books. They want in many cases nearly $200 for the hard copy and even more for some sort of limited digital access. So I go online download a pirated PDF and buy the book. If the book sucks or is not used much in the course, I'll just get the PDF and keep my $200.
Now on the other hand if they post the digital book on Amazon for $40 and have the hard copy for another $80 (and is a decent book worth keeping) I will pay money for both.
The lesson you should teach your son is that some publishers/systems are designed to steal from you the consumer and that you have no moral obligation to play nice with them if they are going to be douchebags.
Just say it was a way for people not to get their homework stolen by bullies but the wise-ass bullies managed to make it a way to use their homework anyways. And those poor kids have to re-do their homework again and again.
"Son, that's the deal. You wash the dishes this lunch, and I let you play Okami for the rest of the day".
Then take the PS3 to somewhere else, where he can not access it.
But leave the PS2 attached into the TV with a pirated Okami copy.
When you see the kid playing, say "This is what I was talking about"
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Tell him that very few people live up to the expectations placed upon them by the law.
en brither. why do i have to keep acxeptiing an xcode license before i use git? it's free, dammir
See kiddo, it's like this: when a rich company like Disney thinks of an idea they own it and everything connected to it, forever, so they can harvest money from the masses in perpuity (as is right and proper). And when someone else thinks of an idea then a rich company owns it and everything connected to it, forever, because lawyers, so they can harvest money from the masses in perpetuity (as is right and proper). And fairy tales passed down for generations, historical figures real and mythical, gods, goddesses, ghosts and demons? They own those too, forever, because they made an animated version and a crappy TV adaptation, so they can harvest money from the masses in perpetuity (as is right and proper).
It's just the natural order of things. And don't you even think of saying otherwise, because you wouldn't steal a woman's handbag and take a dump in a policeman's helmet, now would you? Now shush and eat your soylent.
Have a friend take it from them, saying it will cost 25 as they own the Font used for it's wrapper.
Now explain the best you can.
I was raised in a (professionally) political family. That meant that as a kid, I understood that it was my parents' job to write or change laws. Laws can change. Some laws are bad. Some laws used to be good, and now aren't. Most of the rules and laws we actually interact with are local. Many more people work on local laws than state or national laws. That's a good place to start.
Next, morality. Your son has good moral instincts. Don't discourage that! Generally, you shouldn't do anything you don't want other people knowing about. If you have to keep it secret to keep being who you want to be, don't do it.
Finally, breaking the rules. Sometimes you find you need to break a rule. You know that something is right, and you don't care what society or the law says about it. In that case, you need to be ready to accept the consequences.
In this case, what are the consequences of violating copyright laws? What are the consequences of violating the school rules? Why are you more willing to violate a federal law than a school rule? (As a parent, I know that my child will be punished for me breaking a school rule. In that situation, I'm also happy to try to take any consequences myself.) These are good lessons on how society actually works.
My best advice to you is that you have your strongest voice as a citizen in local government, which includes your school. Teach your child to engage in a productive way with government by example. Don't simply accept what the government is telling you to do. That's not how our system is supposed to work. The solution here is to get your school to change their rules. Start with a teacher, then the principle, then up from there.
First of all, let me say that your son's attitude is a very good sign. Teenagers often engage in very black-or-white thinking, with little tolerance for anything in between. The only thing that will break them out of this is real world experience. It is excellent that he cares about doing the right thing.
Second, get some good firsthand historical accounts. Let him read for himself what leaders of rebellions were thinking when they led their rebellions. He will quickly learn that many of them were actually defending the law as they understood it against "legal authorities" who were blatantly violating the law. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost, sometimes they had good ideas, sometimes they had bad ideas; but they all recognized that authorities could persist in doing bad things, and that sometimes the people had to act against such authorities.
Personally I like first or secondhand accounts of the American Revolution (but not the superficial overviews typically called "history books") - the sort either writing about their own experiences or the author writing directly from the participants' notes with frequent quotations, especially if written in the immediate aftermath. I like this period particularly because there were so many well-educated and literate people commenting on why they were doing what they were doing. Of course, many of the sons of those revolutionaries sadly failed in the third war for American independence, but many of them also recorded their opinions. (And Clyde Wilson's recent short book of essays, "The Yankee Problem", gives some good insights into the origins of that conflict.)
But accounts from many periods and places are similar. The one book I recommend to everyone is David Livingstone's "Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa", because Livingstone was in a unique position to be a qualified proto-anthropologist who was also the first European to contact, and write about, numerous tribes in the middle of Africa who had essentially no contact, even indirectly, with European culture prior to Livingstone's arrival. Livingstone himself already spoke the language of one of the chief tribes in the area, having previously spent years with a related tribe that spoke the same language. His account gives a sympathetic but realistic view of humanity without the influences of the modern world, and personally I think it should be required reading for anyone in the humanities.
But that said I also particularly recall reading about Axum (or Aksum) and the Axumite empire; Schiller's account of The Thirty Years War in Germany, and R. B. Cunninghame Graham's accounts of the history of Paraguay, including the Jesuit Wars and the War of the Triple Alliance which was the most devastating war in modern history. Despite his socialist leanings (somewhat forgivable seeing as the full horrors of socialism were not well understood at the time - and illustrated in "A Vanished Arcadia" which was supposed to demonstrate how socialism could work but really only showed that when Guarani Indians, a relatively advanced tribe, were forced into political associations by external threats and placed under the leadership of some of the most intelligent and capable men from all of Europe, they could sort of manage to get by on a small scale as long as they adopted some capitalist principles, but not so well that they didn't all leave every time the external threat receded) he was an excellent writer and historian. (Cunninghame Graham was also a friend of the author Joseph Conrad, and several of Conrad's most famous characters are based on him.)
Incidentally, the books mentioned above by Livingstone, Schiller, and Cunninghame Graham are available free from Project Gutenberg. I would also recommend the biographies of Francis Marion available there, particularly the ones by Simms and James. (The Weems hagiography of Marion is useful primarily as a demonstration that books are not always to be trusted. Weems, who famously told a lie about George Washington never telling a lie, was well known for his fabrications.) I know about these books because I put them them online in the 1990s. You should also be able to find an excellent book about Aksum by Dr. Stuart C. Munro-Hay, via Google.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly enforced by the State. Nothing at all to do with capitalism. (Unless you meant "crony capitalism", a.k.a. "corporatism", which isn't the same thing at all.)
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Are you in desperate need of hackers for hire? Do you need to keep a watchful eye on your spouse by gaining access to their emails, even constant updates on their geo-location? As a parent it would help to know what your kids are up to on a daily basis on social networks ( which includes facebook, twitter , instagram, whatsapp, WeChat and others to make sure they’re not getting into trouble or up to anything mischievous? Whatever services you may require legal Contact cyberhacker906 (at) gmail.com He is a very good hacker..
You put him in a bubble.... thatâ(TM)s your karma.
copies all the answers to homework and tests and ends up with a better grade because the cheater had extra time to find errors your kid had made
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
The basis of copyright law in the US is not that of a natural, individual property right that is recognized and protected by government, but rather that of an unnatural and temporary right bestowed upon creators in the belief that this setup will benefit society at large. I.e., copyright is a socialist program. And like most socialist programs it has long since been captured for private plunder.
Your kid is right. It IS illegal.
He read up the laws and prove he is right.
You on the other hand justify your illegal actions by pointing out that the law is unfair.
That does not make it any less illegal. Your kid did not say it is WRONG. He said it is illegal and damn right he is! Your kid just want to be a law abiding citizen. He is not asking for your opinion based on your personal moral compass.
When you get hauled to court, youâ(TM)ll be judged by the letter of the law and how it is interpreted by the court and not based on your fucking opinions. You have a kid smart enough to understand that.
You can disagree with the law you can work to try to change it, but until the law changes breaking the law because you disagree with it still makes you liable for the consequences.
Thank the Teachers that your kid doesnâ(TM)t turn out to be like you. You are lucky you are not in jail, but your kid understand that he canâ(TM)t live his live on luck alone like you.
"...fuck android..."
One day you'll figure out why it's there. And the reason will be "...fuck Apple..."
It depends on the age of the child. The myth is for grade school. The demolition is for adolescence, and adulthood.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Moral: Son, do to others as you would have them do to you. Based on all the watercolors on the fridge, I know you want me to take and hoard your artwork. So, you should do the same for others.
Legal: Don't get caught. (See "Technological")
Technological: Alright kid, let's talk about VPNs today.
Teach them bittorrent.
Anecdotally i've seen both, some are very well socialized and others not so much. I think many homeschool parents are hyper conscious about this and compensate with other socialization.
I just cant imagine how you keep up with curriculum. I look at the stuff i did in high school and i'm still rather surprised at how much you can learn at 16/17 - I knew way more math then than I do now. I'm sure i could get back to a place where i could understand differential equations myself, but that assumes my child wants to pursue similar specialties to me. The few parents I know who home school have advanced degrees themselves and do fine by their kids academically, but they've also seemingly molded their kids very much in their own image (or perhaps they were naturally like that, it's hard to say).
While Copyright is certainly applicable in this situation Kindle is a "platform" and utilizing a facility on that platform requires/is done under the terms of a license.
If you have the option to convert to a format that would be readable on the Kindle or another device then viewing it on that other device could be perfectly fine under the license of the Kindle or the device you're using as a viewer, but it may actually be not allowed by the license (you purchased) to view it on the iPad (through iTunes or books or whatever?) to do said format conversion or to even view it on a different platform.
Lesson here is always make sure you purchase media under a license and in a format that let's you actually do what you want with it without being locked in. Strangely enough a lot of Amazon services are actually very good about this, but I'm not personally familiar with Kindle because I don't own one or use e-books.
Explain it in terms of copyright "holders" and *not* copyright "owners".
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Copyright is a strange thing that it changes over time how you need to apply it. Authors who spend tons of effort creating copyrighted works will need to be more careful with copyright since they can detect more details which might be copyright infringement. The more accurate person you are, the more accurately you need to follow copyright. This is why you shouldn't try to teach the kid anything, he needs to learn the fine details of the rules himself. How to apply copyright rules are really changing depending on the person involved. RIAA's version of copyright has always been different from ordinary pirates version.
While some people might complain that the rules need to be the same for everyone, this simply isn't the case. Copyright for authors is much stricter than copyright for end users of copyrighted works.
It sounds a bit like you're trying to explain your own particular interpretation of copyright. I think you need to instead allow that if you present him with all the facts and make the case as simple and unbiased as possible, he might just come to a different conclusion than you. We can't make our kids think a particular way and part of being a teenager is learning to think and decide things for themselves. Maybe step back a bit from trying to justify your own habits and instead just support him in finding out what he needs in order to work it out for himself. That might still mean you can present some challenging information and questions, but at the end of the day that's all they'll end up being: questions. You might ask him what he thinks is "fair" and "right" and "the best thing for everyone". Find some different angles from which to approach the same issue and see if he can come up with good answers. But ultimately you're going to have to let him make up his own mind and be prepared that he might still think what you've done isn't OK.
Life in the 100% non-constructive world is so impractical as to be almost unbearable, so we are all effectively quasi-criminals most the time, which doesn't matter until it does, and when that day comes, unfortunately, the system is rigged so that some of us can afford better justice than others.
There, I just saved you at least ten fairy tales (though you might not thank me for replacing the figurative wolves with real wolves).
Roger Ebert — 2009
There's a few more lines on this theme in the original that I was too frightened to quote.
> I found a bootleg PDF online. I tried to explain that he could just read that, but he freaked out. "That's illegal, Dad!"
Sounds to me his indoctrination is going well. Good job! And most slashdotters agree from what I see here in the comments section, and what's worse they're mixing concepts of legality with morality. Mother of God, save us.
Submitting to stupidity (or even worse, indoctrinating your kids and then tapping them on the back when they submit to stupidity) is everything what's wrong with modern society. This is how corporations rape people in the ass, the these copyright laws are extraordinary example of that, and greed. If I have to explain to you (I assume all here are adults) at this point in your life why submitting to stupidity JUST BECAUSE IT'S LAW ultimately makes more harm than good then you're already far too gone and explaining anything will just bounce off of you.
The alternative is not breaking the law.
Alternative is explaining how the system is designed to maximize their profits, and how you can bend it around in your favour without breaking the law, which you have to do because the system is set there to screw you over ( to which you're submitting). But of course, this requires the community and the parent to actually have brain, and not just being a drone / tool... trying to make his offspring to be yet another 9 to 5 tool slave.
You have to talk to their in their own language.
Would you care to give an example of something you would consider "brainwashing" that is currently occurring in public schools?
You said it yourself: gay marriage, affirmative action and all that SJW bullshit.
No victim no crime.
+
The law is an ass
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Here's how we explained to our 5 year old how Santa cannot bring any toy.
Santa makes toys in his workshop. But he's only allowed to make toys that isn't under copyright. So he cannot make ... because of copyright.
Home schooling does't mean the parents are the sole teachers. Many home schoolers use online courses, including Khan Academy and other resources. Many work in groups with other home schooled kids with parents rotating to teach their area of expertise.
Disclaimer: My kids attend public school, but I supplement that with plenty of learning at home (rockets, robots, programming, explosives, etc.).
Your mistake for buying a kindle. My ebook reader can read all formats, it's from bookeen, a French company.
It's time for you to have a serious "Talk" with your kid. Not about bees and flowers, but about noses and rubbing hands.
Disclaimer: My kids attend public school, but I supplement that with plenty of learning at home (rockets, robots, programming, explosives, etc.).
Are you homeschooling them or preparing them for war?
The most important skill and experience you take away from public school is the ability to deal with the public.
Yeah, no school bullies for the homeschooled.
I'm just waiting for Amazon or Disney to state that consuming any content, anywhere, anyhow, in any shape or form is copyright and patent infringement and that damages must immediately be paid to them.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
To properly illustrate copyright, on his next birthday tell him that you can't sing "Happy Birthday." Then he'll start to understand how wrong laws can be.
Being able to pretend you're an ex SEAL/green beret/whatever is a useful skill in the USA.
No sig today...
So don't buy the books, download them.
That's what this is all about anyway, teaching kids that copying is not wrong, copyright law is wrong.
And of course show the kid that copying is not theft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
you could also just spend the 7 dollars or less for a used copy probably and tech him the value of buying tangible items instead.
do you have any data/study that demonstrate kids exposed to social world of a real world community, including among other things, "church, sports, and social field trips" etc, are less exposed to reality
For data, yes, I do. I have 2 sets of neighbors that home schooled for years. Their kids are having difficult times adjusting to and integrating with society as they leave the safe zone of their cloistered nest.
also , given the snow-flaky behavior of kids coming who come out of public schools, who loudly, and sometimes violently, demand they want to to be protected from ideas that conflict with dominant establishment "liberal" ideology, there is enough proof, that contrary to what you say, brainwashing and inability to deal with reality is definitely a public school thing. whether it is also home school thing is yet to be demonstrated.
And yet the overwhelming majority of people with influence in the public sphere are not home schooled. In fact, a shocking number are not even liberal. Both proving the lie to your unsubstantiated assertions. Are there kids coming out of public school that are woefully incapable of dealing with life in society? Of course, but they are in the minority of those graduating from public schools.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
My children are at this same age, asking similar questions.
To 'explain copyright', first you will need to know your own goal.
Are you trying to teach your son how to comply with the law? Or, are you trying to teach your son how to recognize when a bad law is being used to make society poorer?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Referencing "gay marriage" is taking a side.
Australia just legalized "gay marriage." How do you cover that event without mentioning "gay marriage"? "Australia just passed a law... We won't say exactly what it is, because we don't want to take a side. Anyway, that's what they're out celebrating. Their new law that shall not be named."
Affirmative action is discrimination.
Well, now we know your side. Let's hope the teachers are more balanced than you.
Illegal immigration is illegal, so there is no other side.
Again, we can infer your side. The question of what to do with people who live here without legal status has no obvious, indisputable answer. There is certainly more than one side.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Knowledge of rockets and explosives would be useful in the public school I went to.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
That's something that homeschoolers "can" do with all the free time that they have from not going to school.
Or they can sit in a corner of their basement for 16 hours a day reading their parents manifesto on how the government wants to steal their dental fillings.
It turns out that humanity has the entire spectrum covered.
Just like all intellectual property.
The notion that somebody can own an idea, sound, color, arrangement of shapes, etc, is patently absurd.
Copyright is the enforcement of that.
Tell your kid your opinion and why you believe it, and let him come to his own conclusions.
My brother used to say how ironic it was that I didn't believe in copyright but followed the law scrupulously, while he did believe in copyright but he and all his musician friends violated it willy nilly. It's interesting how we grew up so differently. We can still be friends.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
The plucky entrepreneur who strip mined the public domain and made millions (back when millions was a LOT of money) and reinvested some of that cash into lawyers and lobbyists to make damn sure no one else on the planet would every be able to do the same.
https://priceonomics.com/how-m...
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
its called being a parent, novel concept. /. community to do their parenting.
either you or your spawn google it, look at wikipedia, and fuck what else?
it pisses me off when stupid fuck-tards expect the
no wonder the youth around the world are fucked.
so, is the expectation that a website do your parenting while your "flickin tha bean" watching netflix, jerking off on twitter, while venting your emotions inappropriately on facebook?
heres the headline.
orgelspieler sucks on BEAUhd while msmash plays with her self, while publishing this "filger-carb".
lame
even worse that the fuck tards around here publish this shit. fucking turds
Companies spend money making campaign contributions (bribes) to politicians. Politicians give them laws that are very generous and allow them to be enriched.
Cronies must be enriched. This is government policy.
Did you not understand something about the words "data" or "study", or are you under the misapprehension that the plural of anecdote is data?
This is a fraught and complicated issue, which suggests taking some hard looks at hard numbers. To me it's unlikely that being homeschooled is any more influential than any other social institution in human history. It's clearly not a universal path to -- I mean, whatever, pick your favorite bugaboo -- so to anyone claiming harm, it had better be measurable.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Affirmative action is discrimination. That's a fact. There is no side to take when talking about facts. Of course, we can be in favor of this discrimination, or we can be against it, but it doesn't change that affirmative is discrimination.
In the same way, illegal immigration is obviously illegal. I mean even a 3-year-old can understand the concept of "adjectives".
There is no side to take when talking about facts.
Bull shit. There may be no sides to take on whether facts are facts, but when we're talking "about facts," we're talking about them in relation to ideas that may be disputed. The definition of "gay marriage" isn't up for debate; its legality is. The definition of "affirmative action" isn't up for debate; if/how it should be implemented is. Whether or not "illegal immigration" is illegal isn't up for debate; what to do with illegal immigrants is.
You seem to be suggesting that these topics all have only one side because there are facts involved. I'd suggest that you don't know WTF you're talking about. None of those topics are one-sided, even though we can "talk about facts" on all three.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
your kid is NOT going to be getting any pussy.
Your main issue isn't with copyright; it's with proprietary software. (Copyright does get involved in the solution, though.)
Under no circumstances does a physical paper book ever tell its owner "no, you may not read me." There aren't any conditions where you, the buyer, would want that. But that's exactly what you got, when you foolishly bought a proprietary book that requires proprietary software to read. You should never, ever do that. Let the book that prompted this question, be the very last time you pay for such a thing. Never again.
That simple little thing is why you never bought a Blu-Ray disk, why you don't subscribe to Netflix, etc. And it's also why you do buy .flac files from bandcamp, maybe even CDs from some bands, etc.
If someone has the capacity to tell you no, you always always tell them no first, before they get any money at all from you. If someone lacks the capacity to tell you no, then they're participating in the market and that's when you make purchasing decisions and will often throw money at them.
Copyright has little to do with this, except that copyright happens to also be one of the conditions for DMCA. And DMCA is the law that says even if you lawfully buy a copy of something and you aren't trying to violate copyright, someone else (not Congress) gets to choose all the things you're allowed to do with it, and it becomes illegal for you to try to assert all your usual rights under copyright.
So first, teach the kind to stop buying proprietary shit, to always vote against (when he grows up to voting age) candidates who don't say they're going to try to repeal DMCA, etc. He needs to realize that he is a force, both politically and economically. A small force, but all of us together add up to a sum of 1.0. That's life.
Second, teach him that whenever proprietary formats are the only thing available, then he's going to break a law anyway, so the best thing for a moral, conscientious citizen/customer to do, is violate copyright (pirate it) instead of violating DMCA. That way, you deny money to the jerks who decided to use a proprietary format, intead of funding them (that is the big nono) and then reading the book on the "wrong" screen behind their backs. And denying them money is an important thing for everyone to do, in order to try to prevent recurrences of exactly the problem that you two just experienced with your proprietary book.
When he says "that's illegal" you should be askng him "who the fuck is telling you that you shouldn't be doing illegal things?! Always evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis. The law is not a constraint, it's just an expression of risk. And pirating proprietary format media is low risk as long as you do it right. Now, let's start with talking about how to safely pirate.." and then you teach him, and make him swear to teach at least two other kids, so that purveyors of proprietary media get financially wiped out over the next few years. This will cause these kinds of problems to go away and open up the market to more fair-minded vendors. And that's what everyone wants. That's victory.
You never know when you will need to prepare a shaped charge.
You got me. :) I'm not sure I can cite a study. I am aware of the studies you likely found.
I can tell you what I don't find satisfying about those studies though: the metrics I've seen don't work. They talk about employment, voting, volunteering, etc. And that's all valid to look at, and homeschoolers do well there.
Where my experience with homeschoolers falls apart is that they aren't as self-reliant, and they don't cope as well with difficult people.
They were raised by helicopter parents, who were always there to tell them how to cope with things, so they have the benefit of all that personalized time and that shows -- but many of them have also missed out on how to deal with NOT having that resource available.
And secondly, they were never in the crucible that is public school; homeshoolers were socialized with other people who were like them. If they volunteered to something and the people were miserable cliquish pricks they never had to see them again, they don't have school 'crucible' experience.
When you read homeschooling literature, they count that as a positive. And I can understand why, but I think there is some value in it, the same way a little dirt in your life makes you healthier overall, public school toughens you up a in way you just don't get from Mom & Dad and their specially planned and curated and catered and chaperoned events with other Mom's & Dad's just like them.
I think there is value in learning how to succeed in a place that a homeschooling parent would never expose their kid.
I think the studies show better outcomes for homeschoolers, because there's a lot of kids in public schools whose parents just don't care and aren't involved (and that's tragic). But I also think the outcomes for kids in public school whose parents actually do care just as much as homeschooler parents are going to be better. I don't have a study for that and don't know how I'd even do one. But it isn't inconsistent with what we know -- I mean if we filtered out the results of the kids in highschool whose parents weren't involved with the kids, whose kids were little more than delinquents waiting to graduate to welfare and prison; if those were filtered out, the results of the remaining set would surge.
This is good introduction to a basic life lesson. And that lesson is that just because something is illegal doesn't always mean it's wrong to do.
Obviously this is a potentially dangerous leason which you might want to delay until he's older, but it couldnt hurt to lay a bit of groundwork for the idea.
.. to find out who lied to your child, and why your child believed this person, and then get that person removed from your child's life? This is the hugely important thing. Your child is trusting an unknown liar more than he trusts you, and you are his Dad. Please, be more worried about this than about copyright. Your childs ability to determine his own future is at stake here.
The problem you're running into is that lots of children like there to be one right answer. It isn't surprising since they grow up being told things in absolute terms because sometime there are clear answers ( how words are spelled, what 2+2 is) and sometimes we don't trust their judgement (look both ways before crossing the street, don't talk about uncle Bob's nose).
Copyright is more complicated because it has legal, moral, and economic aspects, and there are abuses on both sides.
Start with a bit of history.
In the good old days there was no copyright, but there was also no printing press so there was not easy way to mass produce copies. You couldn't record music, and you'd get kicked out if you sat there and tried to write the music down, so it took someone like Mozart who could remember an entire performance and write it down later to "steal" music. (http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/09/mozart-vatican-allegri-miserere-terez-rose.html)
When the printing press was developed things started to change and it was decided that it wasn't fair for me to take another person's book and print hundreds of copies of it. Publishers wanted absolute control, which included the ability to silence critics. It was recognised that there were two rights that needed to be balanced: the right of authors/composers/performers/publishers to make money, and the right of the public to enjoy, use, and comment on publications. Where the law says this balance is has changed over the years, and will continue to change, so this becomes a moral question of where the balance should be.
Then look at the law.
There are rights on both sides: publisher or author, and public.
Publisher: In theory, copyright allows a publisher to control when copies of a work are made. Generally people think about a "fixed" copy since with a computer there are many copies made all the time. There's one compressed version on the DVD, one compressed version in memory, one uncompressed version in memory, one screen image in the video display buffer, and one image on the screen (and I suppose there's an image on the retinas of every person watching and then in their memories if I'm being pedantic). Some publishers have insisted that any copy in memory requires their explicit permission, so it's impossible to even watch a DVD you've bought (I can't find an example, but I've actually seen this in some license agreements, which I'm sure your child doesn't read). This is a case where the law and publishers' thinking hasn't kept up with technology.
Public: On the other side there is the first sale doctrine. In the early days publishers insisted that you couldn't lend or sell a book to someone else, so copy right also limits the rights of publishers and allows buyers to "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" and to "display the copy publicly ... to viewers present at the place where the copy is located".
Publisher: Copyright doesn't apply to recipes. In theory copyright protects anything creative, but apparently recipes don't count. There are arguments that a recipe is strictly functional and has no creative aspect, which is nonsense. The reality is that when the laws were being written the publishers wanted to make cookbooks and no one cared about the women they were stealing from. Today in a cookbook, the description of the food is considered creative and can be copyrighted, the choice of what recipes to include in the book is creative, but each recipe itself isn't creative so gets no protection. (http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/06/can-you-copyright-a-recipe.html)
Public: Time-shifting. When VCRs first appears there were lawsuits about them until the courts decided that it was legal for members of the public to record any show (making a copy without permission) for the purpose of watching it at a different time.
Publisher: Most of the world has the concept of "moral rights" the US does not. One of the long standing debates in the copyright world is tha
Your kid has an ipad and a kindle. Two drm enforcing devices to keep him compliant with the patent/copyright monopolies. That's a bad start.
Tell him to read this: Right to read.
Change his life as much as possible to free devices. When he start taking access to culture for granted it will be easier to properly explain copyright.
As an author, I've always taken the stance that if you buy one of my books as an ebook, you should be able to read that book on any device you own that can display books. Be it an iPad, iPhone, Kindle, Galaxy #, etc. This is why I do not allow DRM on my books when published. Copyright fair use allows that you should be able to read that file on any device that you own. What copyright does not allow is you to make copies of that file and sell it to other people.
If your son has the ebook on his iPad, it is most likely in EPUB format. (If it is an enhanced book in Apple's iBook format, then this won't work.) Just make a copy of the EPUB file to the desktop. You can then run software that will convert the file to the Kindle MOBI format that he can then side load onto his Kindle.
Amazon has software that will convert EPUB files to Kindle files so you can read them on your Kindle. The program Calibre can also convert between formats.
I certainly appreciate your son's concern and respect for the copyright. But in this case, he can go ahead and make the copy so he can read it on another device.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
You kid understand copyright better than you do.
You paid for one copy, borrowed one copy, and created one illegal copy.
That you bought a copy in a format you can no longer use, which is your own fault, doesn't excuse you creating an illegal copy.
It is that simple.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly enforced by the State. Nothing at all to do with capitalism
Capitalists have always needed a state and have always taken state subsidies and used the state to create monopolies, the jokes on you. Your thoughts on these matters are not even wrong.
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Rule of the thumb.
If you think the product is worth supporting and the price is fair you should pay for it. Otherwise it's okay to just get a copy.
As most copyright holders usually want ridiculous amount of money it's usually okay to get a copy from you favorite torrent site.
Just tell him that copyright was intended to increase public information stores, but was modified by Disney so that rich corporations keep the content forever.
https://tuttletwins.com/food/
You may want to discuss with your kids that just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's always bad or wrong to do. It's important for us all to be able to use our own critical thinking to make decisions for ourselves as to what is right and wrong and children need to develop this skill at an early age. Children who don't learn this important skill grow up into people who have the law set their moral and ethical compass and many of our laws are neither moral nor ethical. In fact that is why the system was developed to be changeable by the people in the first place.
All rights reserved is a y.A. Novel perfect for teens about a dystopian future where all words are copyrighted and you have to pay to speak.
Your argument regarding public schools actually also applies to home schooling. As someone who was home schooled, I'll make this comment: it depends heavily on the effort and intent of the parents as to what level of socialization and integration their children receive. This is why homeschooling is problematic....if you get lucky (as I did) and are exposed to adult, complex social interactions at a young age, then you find yourself unexpectedly more efficient and able to integrate into the workplace with less effort, as you've already learned how to "be an adult," while other teens were languishing in public school hell. But the same issues apply to public schools, which can vary dramatically in quality and experience. These are not simple black/white scenarios, and your anecdotal experience is not a sufficient data set to extrapolate from. That said....I'm not home schooling my own child, because I feel he will get far more out of a directed public/private school experience than I could offer him.
Having bashed the use of anecdotal evidence earlier I will now state that I know of almost no public school graduates who appear to have benefitted from their socialization experience in school. The only commonality of almost everyone I've known over time is that actual college experience seems to be the greatest factor in improving personal disposition and social ability. The worst cases --the people with serious social and emotional issues-- never went on to college, and suffer with their bizarre impressions of life post high school. Ironically despite being home schooled I've never actually met anyone else (other than my sister, of course) who was also home schooled so I have no frame of reference to compare here. I have a friend who's ex home schools their children. I concede that the one time I met them I got a really intense "Children of the Corn" vibe and I can't say why exactly.
The argument that home schoolers have the luxury of avoiding the shittier, more socially alarming and degrading elements of public school and therefore miss out is not actually a very good argument. The net result (in my experience) is that you end up an adult who doesn't put up with childish bullshit, because you learned that it's non-productive to tolerate the bad apples.
I've always held that "home schooling" is great, after school. I freely admitted my data set wasn't big enough to draw any conclusions from. It's merely 2 data points that happen to fall on the "wrong" side of the scale for home school proponents. My data set is actually larger than what was stated, as we have second hand information from the coop that one set of home schoolers attend, and they universally seem to have social problems with society at large as they age out and move into society. The problems are not just social, but also job and college oriented as the challenges to get into a school or job appear to be much tougher for home schoolers in general unless they enter the family business or some extended catered support system, like a church oriented entity for those that do religious based home schooling.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
There is no âoepublicâ any longer, only special interest groups
"you end up an adult who doesn't put up with childish bullshit, because you learned that it's non-productive to tolerate the bad apples."
Where did they learn that? In all the hours you spent never being exposed to them?
That doesn't add up.
People who did spend time with them are going to be better at identifying them, better at getting what they need from them, etc.
Learning 'not to tolerate the bad apples' doesn't really get you anywhere in a world where the bad apples frequently stand between you and something you need or want.
Public school is pure brainwashing to be ideal consumers. The way they teach copyright in school these days, you shouldn't actually create anything for fear of infringing someone's work. So the public school kids are consumers while the private school kids learn to create stuff to sell to their brainwashed victims.
And so the rich will always own the middle class in America.